111–120 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is that supposed to work?
They are *already* retroactively rewriting reports and documents to align with the dear leaders brain farts. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250807-us-to-rewrite...
> They referenced a report from the Anti-Defamation League about anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia that detailed a coordinated campaign to manipulate content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict And there it is. The reason. Do they have some kind of blackmail on people? It’s almost as if they had an operative throwing parties and video taping the depraved acts of people in power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are *already* retroactively rewriting reports and documents to align with the dear leaders brain farts. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250807-us-to-rewrite...
And? They can rewrite their own reports as much as they want. They don't get to rewrite Jacobin articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly is that supposed to work?
It's not complicated, same process as has been applied to government agencies and private universities: remove "DEI", that is any mention of anti racism. How it's enforced is a detail. They have the Supreme Court to issue whatever verdict is required.
This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? They can rewrite their own reports as much as they want. They don't get to rewrite Jacobin articles.
I’m just establishing that they have been in power for 5 minutes and haven’t hesitated to try and literally rewrite history already. You should expect them to continue to do so wherever they think they can get leverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not complicated, same process as has been applied to government agencies and private universities: remove "DEI", that is any mention of anti racism. How it's enforced is a detail. They have the Supreme Court to issue whatever verdict is required.
No, it must be complicated. Wikipedia isn't grant-funded (they have money coming out of their ears) and it isn't a government agency subject to regulation. Most private publications are proudly biased. In fact, the most likely outcome to the House trying to play hardball with Wikipedia is a double-digit percentage increase in their donations. Which I don't think House Republicans mind, because none of this is actuall…
Dragging people for public spectacles in Congress, lawfare through frivolous lawsuits, frivolous investigation through a variety of agencies, wasting the orgs time in court, allies doxxing org members to intimidate them with stochastic terrorism.
If you haven't been paying attention to how Trump and Co have been weapoinzing government to silence critics or pressure private orgs, you haven't been paying attention.
What happened to Harvard?
What happened to CBS/Paramount?
What happened with 60 Minutes?
What about ActBlue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
what evidence do you have to back up this baseless claim? They openly publish their financial reports: https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports $178 million might sound like an extremely large amount of money if you're a member of the general public, but for a global resource kept up to date that serves hundreds of billions of visitors per year this is actually not a huge quantity of money.
Usually non-profit organizations like this get significant corporate funding because they do work for companies and political organizations, which is where the corruption comes from. I don't think there's any doubt Wikipedia is a politically biased organization, all you have to do is look at their URL blacklists to figure that out. The NYT is regarded as a high quality link, meanwhile you're not even allowed to link the epoch times as a reference despite it being the most comparable right-wing competitor to the NYT. Basically every major right-wing paper is banned, while every major left-wing paper is allowed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it must be complicated. Wikipedia isn't grant-funded (they have money coming out of their ears) and it isn't a government agency subject to regulation. Most private publications are proudly biased. In fact, the most likely outcome to the House trying to play hardball with Wikipedia is a double-digit percentage increase in their donations. Which I don't think House Republicans mind, because none of this is actuall…
How has it worked already? Dragging people for public spectacles in Congress, lawfare through frivolous lawsuits, frivolous investigation through a variety of agencies, wasting the orgs time in court, allies doxxing org members to intimidate them with stochastic terrorism. If you haven't been paying attention to how Trump and Co have been weapoinzing government to silence critics or pressure private orgs, you haven't…
CBS's owners were existentially dependent on DOJ approval of an impending merger.
60 Minutes is a CBS property.
Nothing has happened to ActBlue.
So again I ask: how exactly is the House supposed to accomplish anything with Wikipedia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should any administration be investigating a private entity for bias? Whether there is bias or not is entirely immaterial! The government should not be the Ministry of Truth!
Is a non-profit a private entity ?